Youtube copyright 'rules' and guidelines

I currently have 24 videos on Youtube featuring copyrighted music. I know some channels have hundreds of videos with similar content. My account is in good standing, but the majority of my videos have 'Matched third party content' warnings, or are blocked in some countries. Most of the videos that have matched third party content list the artist and song name under the video with links for people to download the mp3 from Amazon or Itunes.

So far, I've been very lucky, but it got me thinking - what are the general rules and guidelines for people like me who create videos with copyrighted music? (I can hear it now - 'There is only one rule - don't use copyrighted music!')   

• If Youtube allows the song to be purchased from Amazon or Itunes under the video, does that mean the artist or record label gave Youtube permission to allow the video? Is it safe from future copyright claims?
• Can a 'Matched third party content' notification lead to a copyright strike?
• Are some record labels 'safe' or more relaxed with their copyrights then others?
• Are some record labels completely off limits?
• Is there a window of time (say, 1940 back) where we can safely say that the copyright has expired and the song is considered to be public domain?

Some of the videos I uploaded started out with no copyright notification and months later, I would receive an email notifying me that the audio matched third party content, but the video is still available to the public with ads. So far, none of the notifications have lead to a copyright strike or a take down notice, but sometimes you hear horror stories that even after a video was up for years, someone submits a copyright claim, the video is taken down, and a strike is placed against the channel owner.   

Maybe we need to start a 'Safe Youtube Artists and Record Labels' list as well as a 'Banned Artists on Youtube' list, which we can continually update. I would also like to build some kind of general rules and guidelines so we all have something to go by when choosing what songs and artists are 'safe' (I realize NO artist is safe nowadays) and which ones are off limits.

For example, I was told that anything from the Beatles is 'safe', but is it really? Every song from every album?

Maybe a third thread should be started on how to deal with copyright strikes under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - and the outcomes of counter claims, in case you want to fight.

After doing some research, I haven't found a definitive guide on the ins and outs of dealing with copyright claims on Youtube anywhere. It's almost like the first rule of Fight Club - don't talk about Fight Club!

I think building up a list of approved songs, artists and record labels as well as some general guidelines can be really useful to the Youtube Vinyl Community.

What do you guys think?

If you're not currently a member, please take a minute to signup and post your opinion, I'd really like to hear your opinion.   

My Cristo Redentor video is banned from Serbia.  I Guess its logical. I don't want to start another war down in those parts!

YouTube looks like the Far West. Everybody feels free to do his business but when some "big" is pissed off by that business, the poor guy is hanged to a tree with no trial.

YouTube looks like the Far West. Everybody feels free to do his business but when some "big" is pissed off by that business, the poor guy is hanged to a tree with no trial.

I think YouTube is trying to do everything it can to bring the record labels and artists into the 21st century but they are meeting with opposition and lawsuits at every turn. YouTube installed a very complex audio recognition system which can identify the song and artist playing in the audio track. YouTube set up a rules system which gives copyright holders the ability to inform YouTube what to do next; allow the video or delete the video. Most companies are getting the point, adapted to the new technology and are allowing the songs to be played as long as YouTube splits the revenue from ads and mp3 sales. The problem is, there are still some record companies stuck in 1990, fighting tooth and nail against the public interest and new technology.

Two interesting videos about the subject:

Rob Reid: The $8 billion iPod

Margaret Stewart: How YouTube thinks about copyright

I found the two comments with the most thumbs up for the second video very interesting:

"I don't get it. If we upload copyrighted material, then the copyright owner MAY allow it, which is good, OR they reject it and we get a strike against our account. So basically, you have to risk getting a strike just to find out whether or not the copyright owner will allow the video. Is there any way we can check if a copyright owner will allow it before uploading the video, thus circumventing the strike?

TheDecadeMoon 8 months ago  26 (thumbs up)"

"YouTube (as owned by Google) makes millions of dollars a year on pirated videos uploaded to its site, yet hypocritically removes users for - gasp! - uploading a 30-second clip from a movie.

YouTube tells users to "only upload video that they own," but 90 per cent of the content on this site is uploaded by people who don't own it. So, what is it, YouTube?

The website that punishes its users for its own vague policies is the website that needs to get a grip."

NewWinnipegger 10 months ago     17 (thumbs up)

Both comments make some very good points. Currently, there is no way of knowing if a video will be allowed or not until you actually upload it and see what happens. YouTube offers no way of looking up or testing the video beforehand, which is also my point at the original post; that we should share the knowledge we gain through our own trial and error with YouTube copyright usage policies. Although the presenter in the second video made a telling remark - she said they apply the usage policy to 'legacy' videos on an ongoing basis, which might explain why a video is up for years before it's flagged and taken down, or a 'matched third party content' message appears out of nowhere in your inbox.

The second comment brings up an interesting thought - if a video is flagged and taken down months or years after it was uploaded, and YouTube profited during the period when it was up, are they legally obligated to return the ad revenue back to the advertisers or split it with the copyright holder retroactively?

From Youtube's wikipedia page:
Copyrighted material
 
At the time of uploading a video, YouTube users are shown a screen with the message "Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts or advertisements without permission, unless they consist entirely of content that you created yourself". Despite this advice, there are still many unauthorized clips of copyrighted material on YouTube. YouTube does not view videos before they are posted online, and it is left to copyright holders to issue a takedown notice pursuant to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Three successful complaints for copyright infringement against a user account will result in the account and all of its uploaded videos being deleted.
 
Organizations including Viacom, Mediaset, and the English Premier League have filed lawsuits against YouTube, claiming that it has done too little to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material. Viacom, demanding $1 billion in damages, said that it had found more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of its material on YouTube that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times". YouTube responded by stating that it "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works". During the same court battle, Viacom won a court ruling requiring YouTube to hand over 12 terabytes of data detailing the viewing habits of every user who has watched videos on the site. The decision was criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which called the court ruling "a setback to privacy rights". In June 2010, Viacom's lawsuit against Google was rejected in a summary judgment, with U.S. federal Judge Louis L. Stanton stating that Google was protected by provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Viacom announced its intention to appeal the ruling.

On April 5, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated the case, allowing Viacom's lawsuit against Google to be heard in court again.
 
In August 2008, a US court ruled in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. that copyright holders cannot order the removal of an online file without first determining whether the posting reflected fair use of the material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania, who had made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy", and posted the 29-second video on YouTube.
 
In the case of Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC, Matt Smith sued Summit Entertainment for the wrongful use of copyright takedown notice on YouTube. He asserted seven causes of action, and four were ruled in Smith's favor.
 
In April 2012, a court in Hamburg ruled that YouTube could be held responsible for copyrighted material posted by its users. The performance rights organization GEMA argued that YouTube had not done enough to prevent the uploading of German copyrighted music. YouTube responded by stating: "We remain committed to finding a solution to the music licensing issue in Germany that will benefit artists, composers, authors, publishers and record labels, as well as the wider YouTube community".